strangenh
NES Member
I entirely disagree about the bill not purporting to authorize certain actions without a warrant that would have otherwise required a warrant. I also agree it's not a "gun bill" but that doesn't make it a good bill, either.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I entirely disagree about the bill not purporting to authorize certain actions without a warrant that would have otherwise required a warrant. I also agree it's not a "gun bill" but that doesn't make it a good bill, either.
I think we haven't been looking at the final HB696 conference committee bill. Unless I'm misunderstanding, there are no references to firearms whatsoever in the final bill:
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=14&txtFormat=html&sy=2019
The single provision that's still there is "[c]onfiscating any deadly weapons involved in the alleged abuse, exploitation or neglect." Note - it doesn't allow them to confiscate all your guns, just the ones specifically used to commit these crimes. Does anyone here honestly disagree with this?
I think we won this one already. I don't see any problem with this bill...
Quite so. The first place to stop legislation with unconstitutional provisions is voting it down at the legislative origin. The second is at the veto. The third is at the courts. The fact the courts could interpret it to require a warrant, doesn't justify waiting until it gets to that point.Even if it is not a gun bill, I don't vague garbage legislation jamming up every day life. This is why I moved to NH, let's not let this shit go, guns or not.
Every single republican in the senate and house that voted, voted against the final bill
What does that tell you?
Is Sununu really going to go against his entire caucus and expect to get re-elected next year
Evan and Susan need to learn our mantra: we don't improve bad bills, we kill them!
Evan wrote a column in Granite Grok saying the bill is perfectly fine and absolutely no threat to gun rights, and Susan is talking up the same points all over Facebook.Ok...this names a couple of names, something I didn’t see in an answer to my question a few posts above this one. Susan Olsen, I’m assuming. This surprises and confuses me as in past conversations, she always seemed like a hardcore, no compromise 2A advocate. I don’t get it. Is the other Evan Nappen? I’ve never talked with him but I’m under the impression that he is a well respected 2A attorney. Do they know something all of us don’t?
Evan wrote a column in Granite Grok saying the bill is perfectly fine and absolutely no threat to gun rights, and Susan is talking up the same points all over Facebook.
Evan wrote a column in Granite Grok saying the bill is perfectly fine and absolutely no threat to gun rights, and Susan is talking up the same points all over Facebook.
The counter to some of the unpleasant accusations is simply to post the text of the bill and highlight the horribly worded sections that deal with weapon confiscation for "neglect" and the shenanigans about accepting protection orders from other states/territories/etc........
The language of the bill and obvious unintended consequences are indefensible
At this point it's Evan, Skip, and Susan against the entire GOP caucus plus six Democrats who also voted against passage of the CoC report.
But according to them, we're all anti-gun and hate the elderly.
Jim Kofalt forwarded a post on FB by John Burt saying it had been vetoed. I am waiting for a definite "yes" from John. This is indeed good news. What alarms me is how some conservatives outside of the house didn't want the Governor to veto it. They said that all the gun stuff had been stripped out...people that I have respect for. I didn't feel good inside when I read some of those editorials...frankly, I was bewildered.I have read the same thing.